Visiontek Radeon HD 4850

17

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

cyberdreck

so is it possible this is better fro an older sys dual core whatever ? im looking for something to play WoW with really my comp is kinda old.

 

avatar

guest001

This review confused me greatly, considering it gave me mixed messages from the september issues. However, there is one very strange thing I noticed: the fps in World in Conflict dropped 20 frames running at the same resolution and AA. Is this an issue with the print copy or the web copy, because almost all of the other benchmarks are extremely similar.

avatar

CWarren410

Does anyone know which applications are capable of using the hardware decoding on this card? I bought another Radeon card over a year ago that promised hardware support only to find that no one supported it. Thanks, Charles Warren III

avatar

karnak

Will Smith should face some disciplinary action from putting out this little piece of writing.  Incorrect testing methodology, misuse of words, downright lying!  (QX9800 CPU??)  We're all human, but I expect more from my Maximum PC!

 

Time to go check all of Will's older articles...

avatar

karnak

So I guess the EDItOR IN CHIEF of maximum PC must be an NVIDIA fanboi or something to write this piece of crap.

avatar

yendor

Yea, I am getting the feeling Maximum PC shows a bias towards nvidia. 7?

I have never heard maxPc write things like  "Not that much faster than an 8800 GT" as a con. They always praise products for being just a little bit better.

avatar

Strongbad536

So its 7, but yet its on the best of the best?  Will, a sub $200 card is not meant for 24" or even 30" resolutions.  You should have done them at 1440x900 or 1680x1050, and done many more games.  And to say its only modestly faster than the 8800GT, but its 2.5 times faster in the most demanding game out there. 

avatar

bholstege

This review was absolutley horrible, for the following reasons:

 

1) You only used 2 real games. I could care less what it gets in 3dMark. I don't play 3dmark.

2) It currently costs around $150, which is an insane value.

3) Of those 2 games, it absolutley destroyed the 8800GT in Crysis. As for WIC, it is often heavily CPU limited. I can't tell if that is the case, because you tested it on a "qx9800" which DOESN'T EXIST.

4) In actual games, this card has been shown to outpreform the 8800gt by 20%, while using less power, at an only slightly highe retail rpice.

5) a $150 card is not supposed to be used on a $500 monitor with AA and AF. Test it at 1440x900 and 1680x1050

 

And please, do reviews with actual games. This one sucked.

avatar

jwalch.hawk

To their credit, they have been using benchmarks in this manner (even if the details, exact tests, etc. change periodically) forever.  They have always used a combination of "synthetic" and "real world" tests.  What I'm saying is that your first issue with this review aren't relegated to just this review, but is an issue that you have with their review process for video cards in general.  I'm not saying that means you're wrong; I'm just clarifying that they've always reviewed this way. (#1 and #4)

Also, the QX9800 doesn't exist for us mere mortals yet, but I'm pretty sure it's one of those soon-to-be-released by Intel parts (boy, I should have a link to back this up).  I think MaxPC was actually trying to remove the CPU from the equation by using the fastest part they could get their grubby little hands on. (#3)

Your other points (#2 and #5) all pretty much pertain to value-based arguments (I'm lumping the choice of monitor in here with this for a reason).  MaxPC has historically not put very much of an emphasis on that (though that's not to say they ignore it entirely; just not a point of emphasis).  The premise is that things should be compatible with the best things money can buy.  I'm sure they knew full well going into the review that a $150 card was likely going to struggle on that monitor with AA and AF at high res.  The counterargument here is that it doesn't matter that it you just can't make a $150 card that can do that - If you want the best, you have to expect that it can handle the craziest crap you'd want to do with it.  The idea is that the reviews aren't relative, but absolute in terms of the scale. A 9 is a better overall product than 7.  They leave it up to you to decide if saving $200 and buying the 7 is the better choice.  Myself, I almost always would go with the 7.  7 is a pretty respectable score in terms of MaxPC reviews, and if I can find a value-priced product in that area, I'm gonna jump all over it. That doesn't necessarily mean that the 9 card can't do things that maybe the 7 card wasn't designed to do well (or at all).

avatar

bholstege

I'm not sure that last bit is true. Didn't the 8800GTX get a higher score than the 8800 Ultra?

I really think they need to look at their testing methodology, and move to a more real world review set.

avatar

band geek

"The HD 4850 has the slowest memory interface of any card in the current generation,"

 

Did you mean slowest? I thought it had some of the fastest-clocked memory.

avatar

n0t_a_n000b

The 4870 has the superclocked memory, which is GDDR5, but the 4850 just has GDDR3, like all Nvidia overpriced crap.

N0t a n00b

avatar

BaggerX

"The upshot? The HD 4850 has the slowest memory interface of any card in
the current generation, and benchmarks show that—especially at high
AA/anisotropic filtering levels."

I'm not getting it either.  How would being the slowest, and the fact that it "Conks out at high resolutions, AA/anisotropic filtering levels" as stated in the verdict section, be an upshot?


avatar

n0t_a_n000b

Yeah, it conks out on high AA, but if you play games like that, buy the 4870 cause it has GDDR5, not GDDR3.

N0t a n00b

avatar

jwalch.hawk

Yeah, by the pure dictionary definition, "upshot" just means more or less means "end result" of "consequence"...  The connotation gets confusing, because I've heard some folks use it in a positive context (this is good) and some in negative (this is bad).  Sometimes it can be hard to tell which was intended, though I'm almost certain that it was being used in a "this is bad" context here.

So I vote we ban the word "upshot."  Who's with me?  Anyone, anyone?  Bueller...

Maybe this is why no one's ever told me I should be in charge of what words are acceptable in English and which ones aren't...

avatar

StormEffect

I think he meant it like, "What's the takeaway from all this?"

So he said, "[What's] the upshot?" as in, what does the GDDR3 memory mean in performance.

Yeah, probably could've used another phrase.

avatar

Skiplives

 

The GDDR3 in the 4850 is slow compared to the memory clocks on nVidia cards or the 4870's GDDR5.  The processor has tons of very good and fairly fast shader rendering units.  So on a shader heavy game, like Conan or Crysis it cranks, especially compared to an older card like the 8800GT.  If the game required a lot of memory to perform, the 4850 in spec form doesn't outshine the older cards.  With twice the RAM maybe we see less of an issue, but that wasn't the card they reviewed.

Like the review says, if you are buying new or upgrading from a DX9 card, it is a great buy.  If you own a 8800GT there is no reason to buy this new card, the playable difference is just not worth it.  You are better off saving another $100 for the 4870.

________________________ 

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.